Socrates' (the "erotic" man's) preferred method of investigation, ad hominem (responding to the core of the human being, logismos aitias, or "recollection"), is no longer understood at all. Partly this is because of the power and wealth of the American universities, and the sheer number of professors they produce to authoritatively lay down their views, and to circle over them like eagles in velvet mittens concealing the totalitarian control of their authoritarian "norms" in the rich northern bloc of civilization.

Stalker: I don't know if one can still listen to the human being. It seems to me, instead, one must listen to being. Pursuing it with speech, speech which names all things, which is the same as being alive, for speech and thought are the same, and without which nothing can ever come to our notice. Socrates: Isn't it an embarrassment to speak about all things, even the least serious, rather than the most important things only? Reason, beauty, justice, and the rest. American: This conversion sounds romantic and irrational. Stalker: I have often studied you Socrates, and your erotic ways. Your teaching is that one must move from opinion to knowing, and that to know is to respond to what is before birth, buried in the soul. Is it not? Socrates: Only I, Socrates, and not Platon, he who lived in cloudkukuland, can answer this question. For I use the notion of recollection in a way that is far from the ordinary path. Just as would one who used a book to improve their posture, through balancing it on the head, would break from the common meaning of a book. American: These people are boring. Stalker: Socrates, does the word book have a meaning?Socrates: It has no meaning beside from how it is used.American: These people need to buy a copy of Webster's dictionary. Stalker: And so too, the word recollection? Socrates: I use this word in a strange way, and not like most people. Therefore, yes, this too is not meaningful except as a tool for signaling a peculiar manner of understanding which lives in my soul. American: This sounds religious. What romanticism! They should read Russel and learn to be free of the "soul" and such nonsense. Stalker: And yet, Socrates, how can we know that your soul is in possession of the right understanding, the right way to use words? Socrates: By the dog, it is because my Daemon is on guard against the error of imagining myself to know when I don't know. Instead, following my erotic nature, I magnetically am drawn to the good. Most of all to virtue, which is knowledge.American: What blather. They should invest their energies in STEM, of course, there is no money in science, except for computer programming, but that should suit their pure notions of the pursuit of knowledge, scientific knowledge. Stalker: And knowledge is what we recollect? Not merely a collection of observations about things that don't concern us.Socrates: I say truly what I believe: It is. American: Who cares if he believes it? What matters is the argument. Again, he must study Russell, and learn logic. He must study Frege. Quine! Tarski! He must learn to set his emotions aside! To not be involved, to cease and desist from the use of their nonsense word, "erotic"! He must learn to argue 'to the object'! Stalker: And yet, Socrates, your inner motives may be only your own. Why do you suppose that they come to a true knowledge for all of us? Your way of using the word recollection may, indeed, be available to others, but why is it the truth? Socrates: Human beings have a beautiful divine spark in ourselves. We are part god. The inner realm, discovered first by the Egyptians, who first learned mathematics, in contradistinction to counting and using numbers in ordinary matters, showed us the way to the heavenly things which always are. The unmoving region of truth. The place of the psuke, where the mind moves, links to the outer realm, in the sense that the stars and the ether links to the changing mortal world by crowing it. American: Nonsense talk! Stalker: Socrates, it has been discovered that the visible stars are not any different from the things down here. They are changing things too. Their orbits are not perfect. Socrates: By Hera! This is wonderous if true. I must have time to consider this. (exit)American: Ah, at last, he realizes that he needs to learn facts and science. Stalker: Soon Socrates will become like ourselves, and learn thinking. American: Thinking? You need more experience. Get out of you Cartesian armchair! Live a little. Stalker: Thinking is an understanding of experience, another way of naming it. We must pay heed to the way words are used by the one using them.American: Buy a dictionary dude!

Yes bit Who are You? If motives are not 'your' own, then whose are they? And them down the line of the eternal necessity of succession, where by, Plato-Socrates will be merely a footnote to shadowy reference, how on earth can MAN again raise Himself out of that shadowy cave?The impetus of an equally shady erotic ladder is the only archaic movement toward the emergence of the Word.The only one. It is mere vanity to suppose otherwise!

Because of the above, my stand is only aesthetic necessity , transcendentalky represented, and in actuality it has deconstructed, it has not followed necessarily, as of yet, its formal demise , following the death of god and philosophy.

Call me a hopeless romantic..

Even of it doesent exist, it has to be invented.why?

Because it has . And if it has, them eternally it will , reapeate otherwise even eternity will be nihilized..

I'm not persuaded that we all will be compelled to understand the reverse of the claim that our intelligence is a complex of bits. That the bits or AI machine is what we are. Isn't it that, indeed, nothing very complicated has ever been properly synthesized, hardly anything more than urine? Living things must grow. You bring in, by suggestion, the oracular "Know thyself": which is not Socrates' ownmost question (nor mentioned by him at all), though Chaerephon's contact with the divine pithia played a role in Socrates' self assigning (thus a certain connection to the oracle exists and gives an excuse for the "sage" word to come in, or, the other occasion, the bringing Socrates back into the hoop of "sage", out of the hoop of: philosopher, reasoner) of the office to himself, of testing his wisdom: of the test of his word: man is one who investigates. This is a vastly different issue, constant investigation as the essence of humanness, than is the vague sage word: "know thyself".

PS

I don't have time to read this kind of journalistic, wholly untrained, dreck. Maybe you could give a short prospectus of the first article?

A hors, a hors, my kingdom for.Pls. Some time. Is the enemy. A 'bit' later....(caughs).

The Shakespeare scholar Marjorie Garber has importantly read Richard III through Nietzsche’s essay The Use and Abuse of History for Life, in which Nietzsche argues that history is a process of dramatization and that such literariness endangers action. We can only use history for life—and liveliness, over and against nihilism, is Nietzsche’s central cause—if we write it in a way that benefits us. But when we become aware of our own theatricality, as we have already seen, when we become attuned to the contingency of historical interpretation, we come in danger of paralysis. For Garber, this is the lesson of Richard III’s simultaneous, ambiguous seduction and repulsion for play-goers.

But, Meno, what is the connection to what is written in this rude unshriven romp? This alludes me, after all.

I'm not sure if you do or don't mean "literariness". Of course, true dichtung must insist on its superiority, its greater being, and therefore greater remembrance of truth (a greater bringing us to truth in our beings and being), than reality, and slam it, "reality", down correspondingly.

This, I grant, Nietzsche is in war with nihilism, but, just so, he admits its superiority. The commonality is unable to understand this, though it suffers from it, for instance, in becoming a political scientist in one's daily ethno-nationalist speech, but at the same time chiming in with the vulgar, with everyone, in the mob denouncing all political science ("subjective" commentary on "science" in the service of politics) that is not the outburst of one's own soul, thus the imbecile confusion of all people visa-via Nietzsche and Heidegger.

Guide wrote:But, Meno, what is the connection to what is written in this rude unshriven romp? This alludes me, after all.

I'm not sure if you do or don't mean "literariness". Of course, true dichtung must insist on its superiority, its greater being, and therefore greater remembrance of truth (a greater bringing us to truth in our beings and being), than reality, and slam it, "reality", down correspondingly.

This, I grant, Nietzsche is in war with nihilism, but, just so, he admits its superiority. The commonality is unable to understand this, though it suffers from it, for instance, in becoming a political scientist in one's daily ethno-nationalist speech, but at the same time chiming in with the vulgar, with everyone, in the mob denouncing all political science ("subjective" commentary on "science" in the service of politics) that is not the outburst of one's own soul, thus the imbecile confusion of all people visa-via Nietzsche and Heidegger.

Yes, , I do mean literariness, the same as taken up recently to emphasize the conflict of Protagoras versus against Plato's Socrates in the Great Debate.

This line of of argument does aim at a timeless future , where Protagoras's sophistry is delineated and demand through Nietzsche to Derrida, pointing with accusing fingers to it's illogical-logical fallaciouness. It's distracting casualness made for great reading, but landed many into fractured literacy and an equally tragic end.

Words are a great objective as long as they do not wreck havoc for the sake of immediacy.

Socrates challenged us to ask important questions, to actively engage in intellectual prowess despite paradigms of limiting embrace for the higher mysteries. The quote, "I know I know nothing" is just so penetrating, so crystalline, that looking that sharply into our constitutions reveals the arrogance, blindness, psychoticness, and foolishness of us all.

To ask the questions, to let go of our preconceptions, to soar into the limitless, and open the door to higher knowledge, that's what so illuminating, transcendental, groundbreaking, and holy.